Craig Saunders v.

Third Circuit

Craig Saunders v.

563 F. App'x 165

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedApril 7, 2014

Docket14-1538

StatusUnpublished

This text of 563 F. App'x 165 (Craig Saunders v.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Craig Saunders v., 563 F. App'x 165 (3d Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In an earlier appeal, Craig Saunders, a state prisoner, was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. At that time, Saunders was notified that he was required to pay the full $455 fee in installments regardless of the outcome of his appeal and the warden was directed to collect and forward the fee to the District Court Clerk in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Saunders v. Phila. Dist. Att’y’s Office, C.A. No. 13-1951 (order entered May 6, 2013). Subsequently, we summarily affirmed the judgment that Saunders challenged. Saunders v. Phila. Dist. Att’y’s Office, 546 Fed.Appx. 68 (3d Cir.2013).

Saunders now presents a petition for a writ of mandamus. He asks us to order the District Court Clerk to refund the fee that has been remitted and to order the warden to cease deducting funds from Saunders’s inmate account to pay the fee. He argues that he is entitled to such relief because we took summary action on his appeal.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that “(1) no other adequate means exist to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190, 130 S.Ct. 705, 175 L.Ed.2d 657 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Saunders cannot satisfy this standard.

Among other things, Saunders has no right to the relief he requests. As he was notified, he is responsible for the fee for his appeal regardless of its outcome. See Porter v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 564 F.3d 176, 179-80 (3d Cir.2009) (outlining the purposes of the filing and docketing fees and explaining that appellants are not entitled to their return). Once Saunders was granted leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, he became obligated to pay the full fee. See id. at 180 n. 4. That we took summary action before full briefing did not relieve him of his obligation. Accordingly, we deny Saunders’s petition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In an earlier appeal, Craig Saunders, a state prisoner, was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. At that time, Saunders was notified that he was required to pay the full $455 fee in installments regardless of the outcome of his appeal and the warden was directed to collect and forward the fee to the District Court Clerk in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Saunders v. Phila. Dist. Att’y’s Office, C.A. No. 13-1951 (order entered May 6, 2013). Subsequently, we summarily affirmed the judgment that Saunders challenged. Saunders v. Phila. Dist. Att’y’s Office, 546 Fed.Appx. 68 (3d Cir.2013).

Saunders now presents a petition for a writ of mandamus. He asks us to order the District Court Clerk to refund the fee that has been remitted and to order the warden to cease deducting funds from Saunders’s inmate account to pay the fee. He argues that he is entitled to such relief because we took summary action on his appeal.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that “(1) no other adequate means exist to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190, 130 S.Ct. 705, 175 L.Ed.2d 657 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Saunders cannot satisfy this standard.

Among other things, Saunders has no right to the relief he requests. As he was notified, he is responsible for the fee for his appeal regardless of its outcome. See Porter v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 564 F.3d 176, 179-80 (3d Cir.2009) (outlining the purposes of the filing and docketing fees and explaining that appellants are not entitled to their return). Once Saunders was granted leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, he became obligated to pay the full fee. See id. at 180 n. 4. That we took summary action before full briefing did not relieve him of his obligation. Accordingly, we deny Saunders’s petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

563 F. App'x 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craig-saunders-v-ca3-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack